It's interesting that the range of colors used seems to vary throughout the manuscript. For instance, red is used most extensively in the Herbal A section, and very little in Herbal B. In the Pharmaceutical section it is used quite a bit in the jars, but only rarely in the plants.
The nine-rosette page, and the pages on the reverse, only use blue and yellow. It appears that these two colors mix a bit in a few places to form a sort of green, though I'm not sure if that was intentional. But it's strange that the most visually spectacular illustration in the manuscript should have such drab colors. Also, the nymphs on the reverse of the nine-rosette page, along with the ones on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f66r, appear to be the only ones in the VMS lacking rouged cheeks (which are found on all the nymphs in the Zodiac and Bio sections).
This could be taken as evidence that whoever did the colors on the nine-rosette page was not the same person who colored the other sections. But, if we look at the right-center rosette, inside the "cloud", we see that it has been filled in with blue paint in such a way as to create a kind of mottled texture. I'm not sure how exactly it was produced, but we see the exact same effect on f68v3, and it seems likely that the same person colored both of these pages. Yet f68v3 is on the same foldout bifolio as pages that contain other colors, such as red and green. I suppose there are several ways this could be interpreted, but if one person colored the entire 67-68 bifolio, and the same person colored the nine-rosette page, then presumably he still had access to the same pigments, which means he either never finished the job or (more likely, IMO) the lack of red and green on the nine-rosette page was intentional, or those colors simply weren't called for.
The nine-rosette page, and the pages on the reverse, only use blue and yellow. It appears that these two colors mix a bit in a few places to form a sort of green, though I'm not sure if that was intentional. But it's strange that the most visually spectacular illustration in the manuscript should have such drab colors. Also, the nymphs on the reverse of the nine-rosette page, along with the ones on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f66r, appear to be the only ones in the VMS lacking rouged cheeks (which are found on all the nymphs in the Zodiac and Bio sections).
This could be taken as evidence that whoever did the colors on the nine-rosette page was not the same person who colored the other sections. But, if we look at the right-center rosette, inside the "cloud", we see that it has been filled in with blue paint in such a way as to create a kind of mottled texture. I'm not sure how exactly it was produced, but we see the exact same effect on f68v3, and it seems likely that the same person colored both of these pages. Yet f68v3 is on the same foldout bifolio as pages that contain other colors, such as red and green. I suppose there are several ways this could be interpreted, but if one person colored the entire 67-68 bifolio, and the same person colored the nine-rosette page, then presumably he still had access to the same pigments, which means he either never finished the job or (more likely, IMO) the lack of red and green on the nine-rosette page was intentional, or those colors simply weren't called for.